Re‑Examination of the Cultural Mechanism and Governance Reconstruction of "AI Magic Modification" from the Perspective of Deconstruction
"AI modification", as a typical symptom of generative artificial intelligence's intervention in cultural production, has evolved into a global symbolic carnival and technological craze. This article integrates multiple disciplinary perspectives such as cultural studies, philosophy of technology, law, and memory studies to systematically analyze the generation mechanism, text representation, cultural driving forces, and multiple risks of "AI modification". Research has found that the essence of "AI magic modification" is a symbolic deconstruction practice driven by technology, with data-driven and automated generation as its core features. Through "magical metaphors", it conceals sensory alienation and the crisis of subjectivity. At the cultural level, it has led to the collapse of the meaning of classic ips and the tampering of cultural memory algorithms. At the legal level, it constitutes multiple infringements of copyright and personality rights, and it is difficult to defend against "fair use". The research further criticizes the logic of technological capital and the "California ideology" behind the AI craze, and proposes a governance paradigm of humanistic return, emphasizing a shift from technology-centrism to value-sensitive design.
[1] Assmann, J. (2015). Cultural memory (S. F. Jin & X. C. Huang, Trans.). Peking University Press.
[2] Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.
[3] Baudrillard, J. (2000). Simulacra and simulation. In M. A. Wang, Y. G. Chen, & H. L. Ma (Eds.), Philosophical Discourse of Postmodernity. Zhejiang People's Publishing House.
[4] Chen, S. H., & Cai, C. Y. (2026). "Intelligence" creating classics: The degradation crisis and authentic return of AI-modified classic images. Zhejiang Academic Journal, (1), 138-149.
[5] Jenkins, H. (2016). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture (X. Q. Zheng, Trans.). Peking University Press.
[6] Jiang, B. Q. (2012). The construction of the world: On Heidegger's concept of "World". China Social Sciences Press.
[7] Liu, D. Q. (2025). On copyright risks and governance approaches to AI"remixes"of classic films and television works. Publishing Research, (11), 71-80.
[8] Liu, M. Z., & Mei, K. (2023). Media skills to intellectual media values: Ascending media literacy in the age of intellectual media. Chinese Journalism and Communication Research, (6), 25-36.
[9] Meng, J. (2025). Decoding AI remix: Semiotic spectacles and AI hype in the age of human-AI co-creation. Press Circles, (8), 13-21, 96.
[10] Wu, S. B., & Wang, S. X. (2026). Deconstruction and reconstruction of classic films and TV in the wave of AI modification under technological empowerment. North Media Research, (1), 118-121.
[11] Xiong, Q. (2019). Transformative use interpretation in China copyright law. The Jurist, (2), 124-134.
[12] Yang, J. J., & Xue, H. X. (2025). Exploring the construction and rectification of "digital memory communities" in the AI era through AI-altered remakes of classic Chinese TV dramas. Journal of Education and Media Studies, (4), 102-108.
[13] Yang, Z. W. (2023). Data fetishism: Its philosophical substance and ideological critique. Academic Exchange, (6), 16-30.
[14] Zhang, J., & Wei, X. (2025). Breaking the magic and returning to the root: a typological reflection on "AI-modified" videos. Journal of Anhui University of Science and Technology (Social Science), 27(4), 85-92.
[15] Zhao, L. H. (2026). AI-modified videos from a postmodern perspective: Cultural variations and concerns under a technological carnival. Wuhan Radio, Film & Television, (2), 19-21.
[16] Zhou, H. Y., Li, M. Y., & Zhang, Y. C. (2024). Programmable cities: Digital media and urban civilization (a symposium). Exploration and Free Views, (11), 184-200, 212.
[17] Žižek, S. (2017). The sublime object of ideology (G. M. Ji, Trans.). Central Compilation and Translation Press.